Welcome Guest. Please login or register.Please look at the RECENT ADDITIONS and PRICE REDUCTIONS at the top and bottom of the page.All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity!Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES!Welcome Guest. Please login or register.Point your mouse to a coin in RECENT ADDITIONS or PRICE REDUCTIONS on this page to see the the price.All items are guaranteed authentic for eternity!Thanks for supporting Forum with your PURCHASES!

hmmm ic...I was wondering if there even was any of him. If not, i find it hard to beilive considering Carthage would of been toast long before they were without him. And heck, if they would of cooperated with him Rome might of fallen 500 years early

If there isnt any of him, i might have to go with a Scipio coin(hes the one who finally defeated him i think?)

Coinage from Carthage during Hannibal's time has, from time to time, been speculated to have Hannibal's portrait upon them. Generally speaking, the coins at issue are the ones with Tanit/Melquart on the obverse and a horse on the reverse. During the time of Hannibal's occupation, the bust on the obverse is quite different (stylistically) from the issues both before and after the seciond Punic War. This alone has led to the speculation that it is Hannibal on the coin. However, there is no supporting evidence whatsoever to support this theory. Below is a Tanitobverse issue from the time period in question. I can't find an image (right now) of one that has "Hannibal's" protrait. When I do, I'll post it here to illustrate the distinct difference that gave rise to this particular rumor.

Examples in the Enna hoard and other Sicilian hoards indicate that this coin was struck in Carthage for use in the Sicilian campaign of 213 - 210 BC. Experts disagree on the identity of the portrait; many identifying it as the god Melquarth, others as Hannibal or his father.

The problem is that we don't have any portrait that definitely depicts Hannibal. That's the usual way in archaeology: We have a coin portrait and so we can compare our marbles and bronzes. Or vice versa. But there were at least three statues of Hannibal in Rome, as Pliny gives in n.h. 34,32, so there's a good chance that there is a Hannibal among our unidentified ancient portraits, e.g. a young bronze ruler from Volubilis, a bearded man in Kopenhagen and a beardless portrait in Madrid, which have all been considered to be Hannibal at times. See G. Hafner in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Madrid 14 (1973) p. 143.

And, if you read history no insult intended, just a mental exercise here, perhaps in Carthage they had time to mint coins of him, but all accounts place Hannibal sort of on the move or winter bivouaced most of the time. Add to that he mostly wanted to escape Italy except when he won enough battles that he contemplated...mmm...maybe Rome itself? He is unlike emperors and would-be emporers in that he did not have time to set up mints to honor himself.

I don't think you need lots of time or lots of anything to mint some coins. There re so many Seleukid usurpers that made some coins on their way. Even Aristonikos of Pergamonhadhis coins. All you need you can carry with you, not to speak of dies and celators. So I don't think this is an argument against coin portraits of Hannibal. The Roman fraction in this forum will surely know some tree-day-Emperors of which we have coin portraits.

Caesar used "military mints" as well, mints travelling with the army. All you need is celators, equipment and metal. Furthermore, Hannibal did not always move, he stayed month, even years, at some places. Don't forget he was in Italy for 16 years! Fore sure he would have had the time to strike coins, if he would have wanted. And getting celators and the equipment would not have difficult either, as many of his allies among the greek towns of the Magna Graeca were still striking coins themselves at that time.

I still remain unconvinced that an attributable coins of Hannibal exists.

I didn't say "attributable Hannibal" coins exist (I understand you mean coins with hisportrait), I just explained that your argument about Hannibal not having time to strike coins is wrong. I myself do not believe in Hannibal portraits either, but based upon other arguments. Without doubt, he could have struck coins with hisportrait, if he had wanted - but I don't think he did.

I too am of the opinion that coins supposedly depicting Hannibal are more attributable to wishful thinking than to reality. During the 2nd Punic wars neither the Romansnor the Carthagenians used images of actual persons on their coins. It seems most likely that about as close as you can get is "TIME OF HANNIBAL". It's only human nature to embelish and that's exactly the case with supposed images of Hannibal on coins. Not to mention it also embelishes the coin value. But, if a given coin was issued under his authority and while he was still living I think that should be enough.

I also have doubts about the AE Spanish coinage attributed to Hannibal's nemisis SCIPIO AFRICANUS.In Spain there appears to be three varieties of Punic coins supposedly depicting Scipio: SNGCop 28, Muller 4 & 103 and Burgos 425. No doubt there was a change in the coinage with a very different portrait that seems to have occurred at the time of Scipio's conquest of the Carthagenians in Spain. But the portraitstyle bears a remarkable resemblance to portraits found on local Barcids issues. It's just as possible this change in portraits on Carthagenian issues was done by the local rulers as a statement of their simi-autonomous status signifying a change in alliance. Yet there are claims of other Carthagenian Spanish issues being attributed to the brother of Hannibal, Hasdrubal and even an inference of Hannibal's father, Hamilcar. These should also be taken with a grain of salt..

Also, consider the supposed Scipioportrait on the denarius of Cn. Cornelius Blasio, Cn.112/111 B.C. (Crawford 296/1.). This coin has been promoted as bearing the likness of Scipio but there are too many other examples of a helmeted Mars that look exactly the same for this to be anywhere near a valid claim. While the moneyer is Scipio's actual descendent this doesn't means it's a commerative to his ancestor.

Mmmm...perhaps Hannibal missed a bet during his long "travels" along the Italian penninsula and the relative ease of minting coins, and given the many threads about the political and propaganda importance of a portrait on a coin, perhaps Hannibal would have been wise to use those winter-long and longer layovers to hammer out a large number of coins with his handsome(maybe) visage and basically stating: "I am Hannibal, the big cheese and new conqeror of the Empire-as far as you dogs of peasants and defeated armies know." In suitable restrained inscriptions, of course.